There's a discussion here about whether people who have annoyed people on Wikipedia should be hounded off other Wikimedia projects. Not surprisingly, Poetlister is discussed.



Note the "He"! And I'd love to hear from someone on WQ how they watched, tutored and polished her!

I don't know what this disagreement is. Interestingly, Aphaia seems to like Poetlister now:

"Cannonical"? Poetlister's case is the first I've ever seen such a thing explicitly mentioned to the good of anybody, anywhere on WMF. Mostly, nobody cares.

But yes, let him who has never misplaced a semicolon in a poem while quoting it from memory, cast the first stone. And neither do we condemn thee. And as for that gays-editing-from-the-same-bed defense, we know you didn't actually make it on your own behalf-- it just sort of swirled around the Runcornians, kinda.

Can't people just let this go? Poetlister has given evidence time and time again disproving the accusations against her. Now that WP is willing to "forgive and forget" and unblock her, they really haven't forgiven or forgotten. Until PL can decisively prove her innocence, they are never going to let this go. They are going to keep hounding her until she leaves or does something that makes them say "Aha! You are a bad person. Away with ye!"

Even if you do good on other projects and are "paroled" on WP, the WP Community will never forgive or forget. Its hypocrisy and vengeance.

It just disgusts me.

I liked Poetlister when she was blocked.

Oh, come off it. She hasn't changed. It's just the hail of abuse and snide comments she's been getting from people who should know better.

It's just three or four people, Guy - hardly a "hail of abuse." I agree they should have known better than to express these things (semi-)publicly, but when you get right down to it, they're just a little disappointed, is all.

Nobody, not even someone as well-liked as Poetlister, can legitimately expect 100-percent "buy-in" on, well, anything in this sort of situation. I'd say support for her around here is still solid, and if a handful of people grumble, I say let 'em. It's basically politics - nobody ever wins totally, and there's always a lot of wheeling and dealing along the way.

I agree with The Joy, by the way. These posts about "sin" and her being "polished" are really kind of disturbing, and if these WP'ers had any class, they'd just shut the hell up about it.

Disappointed about what? We've been complaining about her block for the last year. Surely we should be celebrating the unblock and criticising FT2 for being so sour about it, not criticising Poetlister.

We've been complaining about others' blocks. If say Jon Awbrey were unblocked, would Greg be saying the same sorts of thing about him?

I am glad that PL has been unblocked, but it was done was such reluctance and bitterness, I just don't know... I'm worried with all this talk on the mailing pages and on her talk page. Its almost as if this was done reluctantly and there was considerable resistance to unblocking her behind the scenes.

Forgive and forget means you move on and never bring it up again. WP is just not doing that for her. I wish her the best, but I fear there is some villainy afoot in the shadows.

It occurs to me that the resistance to vacating an unjust block arises from the possibility of an inquiry into the causes of such injustices. After all, there are only two fundamental findings that one might anticipate: incompetence or corruption.

Quite so. It occurs to me this observation may also help explain why the various parties aren't queueing up for a "Truth and Reconciliation" event.

That's a plausible hypothesis, albeit one for which it would be hard to obtain evidence if it were an accurate hypothesis.

About the only way I can anticipate proving that is if someone had a pang of conscience, broke omerta, and spilled the beans.

Whoever did that would almost surely become an outcast and a pariah.

I wasn't bitter about her blocking (even though she wore it like a hair shirt) because I thought she was better off not editing Wikipedia. She's actually better than that.

I think the reason had nothing to do with clearing her name (or a moniker? Give me a break), and everything to do with addiction to editing Wikipedia, which I regard as an intellectual virus.

It is an addiction. Hence when the block was lifted, she used any excuse to skidaddle - even a mild scold from Greg Kohs.

I hope she gets blocked again. But like any addict, she'll hate me for saying so.

I didn't "celebrate" the unblock because the unblock was handed out as when a guilty prisoner is early-released from jail because they behaved well while incarcerated. They still think she committed the "crime", of course. Now Poetlister is going back to the jail to work at the reception desk, even though she's innocent of the crime of which they convicted her.

I objected to her goals because I consider Poetlister a friend, and in my experience, her return to Wikipedia is just going to mean more hurtin' at some point down the road.

I would "celebrate" Jon Awbrey's unblock because then I could go buy a 48-pack case of microwave popcorn, kick back, crack open a Dogfish Head 90-Minute IPA, tune in to his Contributions page every night, and laugh hysterically at whatever intellectual malfeasance he'd manage to pull off at the Wikipediots' expense. God, I would donate $100 to the Wikimedia Foundation if they'd just let Awbrey loose for a month.

Jon would certainly go back to Wikipedia to teach them a lesson or two. I infer that Poetlister is going back to Wikipedia to try to win her accusers' respect and consideration. As others have pointed out here -- that ain't gonna happen. They're incapable of showing respect to those who most deserve it.

Greg

This is nonsense. If someone famous under a pseudonym - say the popstar Prince - had been falsely accused of something, wouldn't he want the name Prince cleared, even though it is just a moniker? Why should Poetlister skidaddle? She was editing Wikipedia as well as being an admin here before the block, weith no problems, not even from Greg. And anyone who hopes that a good and non-abusive user of WP would be blocked (on what would of course be a trumped-up charge) should be ashamed of himself.

And if you check, she's doing far more on WQ and WS (where she's never been blocked) than on WP.

God save me from "friends" like that!!!!

Guy, once again, you're attempting to frame my interaction with Poetlister as me questioning her loyalty to Wikipedia Review. I never intended to do that. What I was questioning was her rationale for wanting so badly to have her name cleared by an organization/community that completely lacks due process and utterly lacks in an enforceable set of ethical policies when false accusations are levied against someone who is innocent of the stated crime.

If you come back again with a dismissive "framing" of something that just isn't there, I'll have to assume that you're either just baiting me for enjoyment's sake, or that you really don't understand the parameters of this discussion, as Somey, JohnA, and I have all tried to define accurately.

Greg

So why didn't you criticise Daniel Brandt for wanting his biography fixed or deleted? It was only an article produced by an organization/community that completely lacks due process and utterly lacks an enforceable set of ethical policies when false accusations are levied against someone. Why don't you criticise us whenever we mention BLP? If you're consistent, I won't dream of criticising you.

Of course. In the US, it happens occasonally that somebody is executed for a crime, for which DNA evidence becomes available only later. This would be the same kind of evidence which, if in their favor, would have removed them from death row and pardoned them, if discovered while they were alive.

Almost universally, law enforcement and the state have resisted testing DNA in such cases, after execution has occured. Even though there are many matters of justice and even quality control which make such tests reasonable and more than reasonable. The excuse has been the need to have something called "judicial closure". That's law-speak for "We really, REALLY don't want our major screwups aired."

As a human being, I can think of times when the truth just causes pain, and has no redeeming value. But they are very, very, very rare (generally rarer than anybody supposes, since lies and error usually just foul everything up, including healing). But these are certainly not such cases. The scientist in me would rather have the truth than ice cream. I'd rather have it than be president. I want it even if it damages my own position, and I want it for its own sake, come hell or high water. But not all of the rest of the world operates that way.

Probably because that was under his real name and had real world consequences? I don't criticize DB for pointing out the real world harm caused by WP and bringing the BLP issue to a head.

I would criticize him for some of his tactics, but frankly he's put pressure on WP like no other.

Poetlister didn't want her name cleared, she wanted her pseudonymus moniker cleared. Nobody outside of WP and WR cares about what happened to Poetlister, because its drama over a moniker, not a real person's life.

That's the most callous and insensitive remark I've ever seen on WR.

One of the greatest flaws with Wikipedia and the Internet in general is the idea that names on a screen do not have human beings with feelings behind them. WP's defamation against PL, Taxwoman, and others have hurt online reputations and the personal honor of the defamed. Why is this so hard to understand, JohnA?

These interpersonal skirmishes in the Post-NYBrad WR are taking a toll on everyone. I ask that people be more respectful and do not be afraid to use the "Preview Post" button without considering what impact your words may have on people, especially other Reviewers.

Please guy, get over yourself.

Then why have screen names? The point about screen names is to insulate one's personal life from the Internet.

Of course, if you get irrationally overattached to a screen name, then you get Drama. Lots and lots of Drama. Because by attacking the screen name you're attacking the real person who's wearing the moniker on her t-shirt or something. Maybe her mother starts calling her Poetlister rather than by her real name...or something.

Please spare me this crap about why a moniker can somehow be "defamed". Its just a made-up name made for a particular purpose. No court would entertain for a second the idea that a moniker has a reputation that needs to be defended.

Defamation only occurs when the real person can be or has been identified. PL was blocked for no good reason and that's sad. But so do thousands of other monikers for equally stupid reasons. Most of the time, the person simply creates a new account and carries on.

The idea that to "attack" a moniker is somehow to "attack" a real person is just egotism. The idea that the moniker is so precious to the person's emotional state that they must leave at the slightest criticism is called more colloquially "Drama Queening".

I also fail to see why PL or TW or anyone else gets to play a "Do Not Ever Criticize" card. I criticized PL for wanting to get back in WP's good graces despite knowing exactly how bad reputationally WP is. That's why NYB left. That's why a lot of bright people leave.

I haven't said a single thing to PL that I would not say to her face. I object to the idea that because PL is both pretty and intelligent, she is somehow immune from criticism. I'm not. Neither is anyone else.

Err, do you just want to shut up now, she was identified by her name and photo on wikipedia.

She was defamed by being called a sockpuppet? That isn't defamation.

Would you like to go away as we're having a grown-up conversation over here.

It would seem that Guy diminished Daniel Brandt's plight before JohnA responded.

Poetlister didn't have an article [[Poetlister]] or [[Poetlister's Real Name]] on Wikipedia. Brandt did.

It would seem that Poetlister doesn't need to worry about a prospective employer learning that she was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, so long as she doesn't mention "Poetlister" on her application or resume. Same goes for a business contract or partnership. Same goes for a personal line of credit or business loan. Same goes for consideration for a board seat on a non-profit or an enterprise.

That said, I still felt and continue to feel bad about what happened to Poetlister on Wikipedia those many seasons ago. That's why I wished that she wouldn't return for more abuse. I'm sorry that I've offended Poetlister and you, Guy, for putting that wish before her desire to win recognition of her innocence.

Greg

As far as I know, she has never posted her real name there (in fact in another topic she said that she would be very disappointed if Brandt couldn't find her real-life identity within ten minutes, implying that she has never disclosed it on Wikipedia), and her image was deleted shortly after she was labeled a sockpuppet of Runcorn. She then uploaded another image of herself to use for Wikiquote.

Well then, thank you for saying that, G. Maybe PL doesn't really believe there will be any abuse, or else she thinks it will subside after a while (and I guess it also depends on how you define "abuse"), but none of this changes the facts on the ground, as they say.

Even if a dozen, or two dozen, or several dozen WR members decided to publicly criticize her decision to resume editing activities on WP, the facts (on the ground) are that this is the internet, and people behave differently, you don't really know anybody the way you would in reality, weird shit happens in general, things don't always work properly, and so on, ad infinitum. The internet sucks, which I would argue is mostly because of what Wikipedia has done to it - but you still have to make your choices and do what you think is right, for you and for the people you care about.

And if somebody criticizes you for that, you just have to say, fuck 'em. "This is what I have to do, and that's all there is to it." And if you can smile and act pleasantly while you say it, so much the better.

And if somebody who's criticized you apologizes for it later on, great - but as Wikipedia has shown so many of us, waiting for people to apologize to you is no way to live, unless you just want to become an expert in The Art of Waiting.

...but I want to become an expert in the Art of Waiting noooooooooooooooowwwwww.....

Her real name was posted by Blissyu2, as well as an administrator and she also did upload pictures of herself so therefore she is an identifiable person and was determined to clear her name.

As I understand it, WP has not cleared her name. It's only shortened the previously enforced block to time already served.

Or time not served doing anything useful for Wikipedia, as the case may be.

The fact that WP has only done part of what she wanted doesn't mean that she was wrong to want it.

And we'll never know whether she'd have been completely exonerated if Newyorkbrad had been allowed to complete his work without harassment. It was always obvious that FT2 wouldn't take the same attitude.

Similarly, it's unlikely ArbCom (or any alternative Truth and Reconciliation Process) will ever review other cases (including my own indef-block by KillerChihuahua) to determine if I was afforded due process.

Complete exoneration is probably too much to even hope for in these cases.

After all, they can always assert that I'm an insufferable pedant for sincerely wanting WP to achieve a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media.

Shh ... don't tell Greg and JohnA that you might want an unblock.

Sholudn't this be called INTRAWIKI disrupture?

I think INTERWIKI refers to cross-language links.

Jon

I'm not asking for an unblock.

I'm asking someone in a position of responsibility there to determine whether I was afforded due process.

As you know, ArbCom declined to address the question.

And the Winner in the Category : Oblivious To History ?Ǫ

When it comes to fantasies about a Truth And Reconciliation Process (TARP), Moulton is constantly putting the TARP before the COUP.

Jon

For various reasons, I would fully approve of Moulton being allowed to return to Wikipedia, unblocked and forgiven. He might be able to bring the entire joint to a halt!

</snark>